Davenport v. Woodside Cotton Mills Co., 16841

• Decision Date: 09 March 1954
• Docket Number: No. 16841,16841
• Citation: 225 S.C. 52,80 S.E.2d 740
• Parties: DAVENPORT v. WOODSIDE COTTON MILLS CO., Inc.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 740

80 S.E.2d 740

225 S.C. 52

DAVENPORT v. WOODSIDE COTTON MILLS CO., Inc.

No. 16841.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 9, 1954.

Rainey, Fant & Brawley, Greenville, for appellant.

Leatherwood, Walker, Tood & Mann, Greenville, for respondent.

STUKES, Justice.

Respondent recovered verdict and judgment against appellant for $2,235 actual damages and $1,765 punitive damages; and the appeal is only from the court's refusal of motions to eliminate punitive damages. There is no appeal from the verdict and judgment insofar as the award of actual damages is concerned.

Respondent, a Negro, owned and operated a small farm near the town of Simpsonville, where appellant had a textile plant. He mainly raised and sold hogs, of which he had a herd of about seventy-five in number. For years he had fed them garbage which he obtained from the town. The latter also deposited refuse on property of appellant, which became objectionable to neighboring residents and the town arranged with respondent to deposit its refuse in his hog pasture, which thereupon became the town 'dump.' Without respondent's consent, according to his contention which was sustained by the verdict of the jury, appellant also dumped its indutrial waste in the pasture, including poisonous substances of which respondent's animals ate and died.

The nature of the appeal necessitates the consideration of the evidence in the light most favorable to respondent, for which there need be no citation of authority. If there was evidence from which the jury might reasonably infer wilfulness, wantonness or recklessness, it was not error to submit the issue to the jury and likewise not error to deny appellant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for punitive damages.

In the light of the foregoing principles the evidence offered in behalf of respondent will be reviewed. He testified that his arrangement with the town was made with the Chief of Police (who also acted as Sanitation Officer) and he gave no permission to, and had no dealings with, appellant prior to the poisoning of his hogs. After the town commenced to dump its garbage in the pasture respondent observed appellant's trucks doing the same thing and, upon investigation, he found that appellant had deposited in his pasture resin, glue, dye, sizing and downflakes in large quantities. Entry into the pasture was through a gate on which there was a large 'no trespassing' sign. Respondent had the sign placed on the gate because he did not want anyone to 'dump' in the pasture except the town. On the day after the first deposit of refuse in the pasture by appellant, respondent found many of his hogs sick and some already dead. He made complaint to the policeman; and appellant's superintendent and also its 'outside boss' promptly visited the respondent and went to the hog pasture where they saw the hogs. They offered him the services of a veterinarian and said that they would have one come and investigate, which they did. Prior to this the hogs were healthy. The veterinarian came, as did again the 'outside boss' of appellant. The latter said to respondent, quoting from the latter's testimony, 'I'm sorry. This stuff came from the slasher room. These boys ought to have known not to haul this stuff out here. It's poison.' The veterinarian examined the hogs and respondent removed those which were living from the pasture and put them in another enclosure where he could better look after them, and where they would not have access to the dump. However, all died except one. Included were ten brood sows, eleven gilts, fifty-four pigs and a boar, of the reasonable aggregate market value of $3,000. The policeman procured the county to ditch the land with a machine and cover the refuse; but appellant thereafter, within three weeks or a month, again dumped the 'same stuff' in the pasture and respondent's boar broke out of his pen and got to it, as did his mule, and they died in a day or two. Respondent and his wife went to appellant's plant and talked to the superintendent who told them that calcium chloride would kill but he had not ordered any in several months; there was no denial by appellant's agents that they had dumped 'stuff' from the mill into the pasture just before the hogs sickened and died; and respondent had never given permission to appellant to go upon the property, the permission having been given only to the town to dump garbage in the hog pasture. Respondent loaded on his wagon some of the contents of sacks, which his hogs were eating, and some unopened sacks, and hauled them out of the pasture, to the road near his house.

Respondent's wife testified and corroborated him, particularly as to the 'no trespassing' sign on the pasture gate; the hogs began to get sick the day after appellant's truck first went into the pasture. The hogs enjoyed the powdered substance, some in bags, which looked like ashes, lime or soda. Two or three weeks after the refuse had been covered by the bulldozer appellant again dumped, quoting this witness, 'the same identical stuff' in the pasture, which the boar and the mule got to, and both died. The witness also testified concerning her visit with her husband to appellant's office and the conversation with the latter's superintendent who said that nothing had been dumped in the pasture that would kill the hogs unless it was calcium chloride, and there was none of that because he had not ordered any in some time. The town dumped in the pasture at least daily after they began but appellant's trucks did not start it until the latter part of September, immediately after which the hogs became sick, began to die, three or four at a time, maybe at two or three day intervals, and all were dead by the middle of December; she saw the hogs eating the powder which was said to be calcium chloride.

Respondent's neighbor, through whose yard access was had to the pasture gate, testified that appellant's trucks first went into the pasture in the latter part of September, in disregard of the 'no trespass' sign on the gate; he saw the ashes-like substance in sacks, which also looked like nitrate of soda, and he saw it dumped there the second time, after respondent had complained and the mill hands had burnt off the place. Thereupon the witness notified respondent that more poison had been dumped in his pasture; he had seen respondent's hogs dead after eating the 'stuff' which appellant's trucks had dumped. He saw the bags marked 'Downflakes' on respondent's wagon. Respondent had never had trouble with his hogs before and people came from far and near to buy his pigs. The following is from the testimony of this witness: 'When they first dumped * * * it out there in his pasture and his hogs died, then he made a complaint to the town and they sent a mill hand down there and burnt the stuff, covered up old waste, and thereafter they dumped in some more. * * * That's when I went to Davenport (respondent) and said they were dumping in some more poison.'

The well-trained and experienced veterinarian, who was called by appellant after respondent's complaint to the policeman, testified that he met appellant's outside foreman at respondent's farm, and they carefully examined the hogs, some of which were already dead, and the symptoms, which the witness described, indicated that the trouble came from poison and not from contagious or infectious disease. This was explained by the witness to appellant's foreman who accepted the findings and did not think that a post mortem-examination was necessary to support the opinion of the witness that the hogs had eaten something that was killing them. The witness examined the chemicals on the wagon, identified as calcium chloride and resin, which appellant's foreman said had come from its mill. The witness described the symptoms of cholera which were not present. He testified to his experience in administering a twenty per cent solution of calcium chloride to livestock intravenously, for acute calcium deficiency, which usually was successful, but in a good many instances fatal. Taken by month in enough quantity it is harmful to livestock. Calcium chloride is a calcium salt, similar to table salt which is sodium chloride, and produces salt poisoning of hogs, to which the symptoms of respondent's hogs were similar. It was the opinion of this witness that the hogs died from poisoning, similar to salt poisoning. Some weeks after the veterinarian's first visit to respondent's hogs, on...